L’exercice de la profession d’avocat en société et en multidisciplinarité au Québec : bilan et perspectives Practising as a Lawyer in a Partnership and Multidisciplinary Practice in Québec : Progress and Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La reglementation des modes d’exercice des professions juridiques au Quebec a atteint un moment decisif au cours des annees 2000 a la suite de l’adoption du Reglement sur l’exercice de la profession d’avocat en societe et en multidisciplinarite. Une dizaine d’annees plus tard, l’auteure se penche sur les tenants et aboutissants de cette reforme, en retracant le processus de negociation qui a mene a son adoption ainsi que les differents arguments mis en avant par le Barreau du Quebec et les autres ordres professionnels vises afin de faire valoir la necessite d’une intervention legislative en la matiere. Des donnees tirees du registre des entreprises sont ensuite utilisees en vue d’examiner dans quelle mesure les cabinets d’avocats quebecois ont profite des nouvelles options qui leur sont offertes relativement a leur forme juridique. English Abstract: The regulatory framework relating to the legal professions in Quebec reached a turning point in the 2000s, following the adoption of the Reglement sur l’exercice de la profession d’avocat en societe et en multidisciplinarite. More than a decade later, this article examines the negotiation surrounding the drafting of the Reglement, and the various arguments put forward by the Barreau du Quebec and other professional corporations to justify its adoption. Data from the registre des entreprises are then used to examine the extent to which Quebec law firms have taken advantage of the diverse legal options at their disposal to organize their activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".